Dismissed¶54

G.v.Adhimoolam v. S.Asaithambi

Madras HC15 Oct 2025OSA/331/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Original Side Appeal; Section 37 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Clause 15 Letters Patent; Order 36 Rule 1 Original Side Rules; interim injunction; compromise deed; alienation; settlement deed; sale deeds; O.A.Nos.392 and 442 of 2024; order dated 25.10.2024; learned Single Judge; binding compromise deed; no infirmity; appeals dismissed; no costs; liberty to seek appropriate relief; Madras High Court; S.M. Subramaniam J.; Mohammed Shaffiq J.; dated 15.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; both Original Side Appeals dismissed without costs, with liberty reserved to the appellants to seek other appropriate relief. ¶54

G.v.Adhimoolam Vs S.Asaithambi — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both Original Side Appeals dismissed without costs, with liberty reserved to the appellants to seek other appropriate relief.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants were entitled to the relief of interim injunction notwithstanding the compromise deed entered into between the parties and the alienations made in terms thereof. +1 more

¶46

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no infirmity in the order impugned in the Original Side Appeals, i.e., the learned Single Judge's order dated 25.10.2024 in O.A.Nos.392 and 442 of 2024 holding the compromise deed binding and the alienations valid in terms thereof, and denying interim injunction to the appellants.

¶51

Key takeaways

If any other grievance exists to the appellants, it is open to the parties to seek appropriate relief in the manner known to law.obiter¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court of Judicature at Madras (Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq), by Common Judgment dated 15.10.2025 in O.S.A.Nos.331 & 332 of 2025 (filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent r/w Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996), dismissed both appeals without costs. The appeals challenged the fair and decreetal orders dated 25.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge in O.A.Nos.392 and 442 of 2024 (applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996). Interim injunction had initially been granted, but during pendency the parties entered into a compromise deed filed before the Court, under whose terms the 1st respondent was entitled to sell the properties to a person of his choice without restriction; he accordingly executed a settlement deed and sale deeds during pendency. On the appellants' objection seeking restoration of the injunction, the learned Single Judge held the compromise deed binding and the alienations to be in terms thereof, denying the appellants the relief of interim injunction. The Division Bench found no infirmity in the impugned order, dismissed the appeals with no costs, and observed that any other grievance of the appellants could be pursued by seeking appropriate relief in the manner known to law.

¶1

O.S.A.Nos.331 & 332 of 2025

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

O.S.A.Nos. 331 and 332 of 2025

¶7

O.S.A.No.331 of 2025:

1.G.V.Adhimoolam

2.A.Vijay Raj

...Appellants

Vs.

1.S.Asaithambi

¶13

2.Kavitha

¶14

3.Makala

¶15

4.Senthilkumar

¶16

5.Lokeshwaran

¶17

6.Lalithambikai

¶18

7.Shanmugam

¶19

8.Selvi

¶20

9.K.Makewari

¶21

10.K.Mohan Kumar

¶22

11.Yasotha

12.Rajamani

...Respondents

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

O.S.A.Nos.331 & 332 of 2025

¶28

PRAYER in O.S.A.No.331 of 2025: This Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.10.2024 made in O.A.No.442 of 2024 by allowing this appeal.

¶29

For Appellants : Mr.K.Suresh Babu For Mr.K.Vanisree For Respondents : Ms.K.Niranjana Devi for R1 to R3 Mr.S.P.S.Nithyan for R4 to R12

¶30

O.S.A.No.332 of 2025:

¶31

1.G.V.Adhimoolam 2.A.Vijay Raj

¶32

...Appellants

¶33

Vs.

¶34

1.S.Asaithambi 2.Senthilkumar

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

PRAYER in O.S.A.No.332 of 2025: This Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.10.2024 made in O.A.No.392 of 2024 by allowing this appeal.

¶37

For Appellants : Mr.K.Suresh Babu For Mr.K.Vanisree For Respondents : Ms.K.Niranjana Devi for R1 Mr.S.P.S.Nithyan for R2

¶38

2/5

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

O.S.A.Nos.331 & 332 of 2025

¶41

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶42

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

¶43

The present Original Side Appeals have been instituted challenging the

¶44

order dated 25.10.2024 passed in O.A.Nos.392 and 442 of 2024.

¶45

2. Both the applications have been filed along with Arbitration Application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Initially an order of interim injunction was granted. During pendency of the application, parties entered into a compromise deed and it was filed before the Court. As per the terms in compromise deed, 1^st respondent is entitled to sell the properties to person of his choice without any restrictions. Thus the 1^st respondent executed settlement deed and sale deeds during the pendency of applications in O.A.No.392 of 2024.

¶46

3. Raising objection against the alienation, the appellants contended before the learned Single Judge that the injunction is to be restored. The learned Single Judge considered the issues and made a finding that the compromise deed entered into between the parties are binding and the alienations were made in terms of the compromise deed. Thus the appellants are not entitled for the relief of interim injunction.

¶47

3/5

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

O.S.A.Nos.331 & 332 of 2025

¶50

¶51

4. This Court does not find and infirmity in respect of the order

¶52

impugned in the present Original Side Appeals. However, if any other grievance exists to the appellants, it is open to the partes to seek appropriate relief in the manner known to law.

¶53

5. With the above observations, these Original Side Appeals are

¶54

dismissed . No costs.

¶55

(S.M.S., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 15.10.2025

¶56

dsa

¶57

Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶58

4/5